Introduced Version, House Bill 1073 Representative Don Lehe introduced a bill that would withdraw the BMV’s discretion to withhold the identity of someone who contacts the BMV regarding a person’s ability to operate a vehicle safely. Don’t know that this is a good or a bad idea, it’s just kind of trivial. That probably means there is a specific story behind it. I wonder if Lehe or one of his constitutents in particular wants to know who has been looking at their BMV records.

It is surprising how much legislation, especially the minor nit-picky stuff, is designed, at least initially, to address a particular individual’s experience.

Introduced Version, House Bill 1063 This bill prohibits the use of eminent domain to acquire property for commercial purposes. This is an interesting issue. Currently, I think eminent domain can be used by the government to take private property if it is done for the “public good”. I honestly don’t know if the question has been definitively settled under current Indiana law. But, the argument would go that taking your corn field and selling it or even giving it to some commercial or industrial interest will create jobs, generate tax revenues, and therefore be for the public good. That makes some sense, though it doesn’t feel right that Crony County (fictitious), Indiana should be able to take the property that’s been in your family for almost 200 years since they fought the Pottowatomis for it, shove a bargain basement “fair market value” down your throat, and turn the property over to Acme Co. to throw up a strip mall.

If such a law had been in place in Texas back when George W. Bush was with the Rangers, I believe it would have prevented him from making a good chunk of his fortune with the Rangers stadium deal, for example. (I wonder if anyone currently owns property in jeopardy of eminent domain from the new Colts stadium?)

Richmond Red Devils beat Marion Giants in OT: Just glad to see my old high school basketball team beat the Marion Giants (against whom I still hold a grudge for beating the Red Devils on two separate occasions in the state finals back in the 80s.) Richmond looks to be pretty good this year. They’re 7-2, having lost twice to, I believe the #1 and #3 teams in the state.

Ron Stiver, a brand strategy and sales manager for Eli Lilly and Co., will be commissioner of the Department of Workforce Development, which handles unemployment claims, keeps statistics on Indiana’s work force and spearheads worker retraining efforts.

To be fair, he also appointed a Columbus corporate attorney, Miguel Rivera, to the Dept. of Labor. So, while it’s still the business community, it’s a good 35+ miles south of I-465.

State tax amnesty bill sent to House: Rep. Eric Turner has introduced a “tax amnesty” bill that gives tax debtors an as yet to be determined 8 week period to pay taxes without penalty or interest charges. Proponents say “we need the money”. Detractors say, “it’s a cheater’s rights bill.”

As written currently, HB 1004 would also double the penalty against a debtor who has the opportunity pay under the tax amnesty program but fails to do so.

This kind of makes me wonder what the current practice is with regard to tax collection efforts currently in litigation. I wonder if the State will cut a deal with debtors to settle in full if they pay a lump sum equal to their principal debt, waiving the extras. If they do that kind of thing already, I wouldn’t have any problem with this bill. If not, I have mixed feelings.

Licensure is occasionally about protecting the public but seems usually to be more about protecting the licensed industry from competition. Normally you can tell that’s what is going on by the fact that there will be a grandfather clause that lets current practitioners be licensed, pretty much regardless of qualification. This bill calls for current providers to undergo an “initial inspection.” And, if they pass muster, they get licensed. Whether public safety is served all depends on that inspection I guess. Another somewhat non-obvious reason you sometimes see licensure bills is to benefit those organizations who would make money selling continuing education services. (Hey, at least this one isn’t “hair braiding”. That may have been the worst licensure bill I was ever called upon to draft.)

Provides that a consumer may prevent access to the consumer’s credit report by requesting that the consumer reporting agency place a security freeze on the consumer’s credit report.

This one seems riddled with potential problems. If an individual requests a “security freeze” on their credit report, the reporting agency is then only allowed to give the information to government and law enforcement entities, creditors of the individual for use in collecting on the debt, and the consumer. (I have some vague recollection that it is currently not entirely appropriate for creditors to use credit reporting information to collect a debt.)

It allows the reporting agency to disregard the request if it’s based on “false information” even though the individual isn’t required to provide any reason for the freeze. It also seems like there would be First Amendment and federal preemption issues involved. Maybe the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I also get the feeling that the genie is already out of the bottle with regard to dissemination of our personal information. At this late date, I don’t think you can ever be certain that someone isn’t privy to your personal information.